Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
He is describing the idea of sudden appearance. Your quote mining leaves out the entire rest of the book, in which Gould acknowledges that some species do evolve slowly over time, with several intermediate fossils being found.No, as this quote was not listed in the post to which you responded. Being the weasel you are, you tried a bait and switch.Um...no, since not one quote from Gould is listed there.Are they Gould's actual words throwing Darwin under the bus????
Haha...you took the time to copy paste all of this garbage, but you never actually read any of it, did you?
““Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'"
Caught you lying again, huh.
And since you clearly know less than nothing about any of this, let me help you understand where Gould is coming from, here. (It won't work, because you are a moron. )
Gould is speaking to the idea that only slow, continuous change is how evolution operates (and how diversity of species arises) and arguing against it. Gould does not ever suggest that evolution never works this way. He is forwarding his own ideas that another mechanism -- punctuated evolution -- also occurs.
Not that you actually read a word of the quote you just copied anyway.
. "Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).
The very opposite of Darwin's thesis.
Basically, you are a dishonest conman.
No, You LOSE again you DISHONEST POS.Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or "Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”(Gould)
I win again, huh?
'quote mining' is the losers attempt to obviate an accurate quotation.
I win on that, too.
Right now you’re probably trying to brush something off your face…you didn’t realize it was the floor.
He is describing the idea of sudden appearance. Your quote mining leaves out the entire rest of the book, in which Gould acknowledges that some species do evolve slowly over time, with several intermediate fossils being found.No, as this quote was not listed in the post to which you responded. Being the weasel you are, you tried a bait and switch.Um...no, since not one quote from Gould is listed there.Are they Gould's actual words throwing Darwin under the bus????
Haha...you took the time to copy paste all of this garbage, but you never actually read any of it, did you?
““Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'"
Caught you lying again, huh.
And since you clearly know less than nothing about any of this, let me help you understand where Gould is coming from, here. (It won't work, because you are a moron. )
Gould is speaking to the idea that only slow, continuous change is how evolution operates (and how diversity of species arises) and arguing against it. Gould does not ever suggest that evolution never works this way. He is forwarding his own ideas that another mechanism -- punctuated evolution -- also occurs.
Not that you actually read a word of the quote you just copied anyway.
. "Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).
The very opposite of Darwin's thesis.
Basically, you are a dishonest conman.
Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or "Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”(Gould)
I win again, huh?
'quote mining' is the losers attempt to obviate an accurate quotation.
I win on that, too.
Right now you’re probably trying to brush something off your face…you didn’t realize it was the floor.
Snipped in the ellipsis is:"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)
Following this passage is:"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."
"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.
dNo, You LOSE again you DISHONEST POS.Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or "Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”(Gould)
I win again, huh?
'quote mining' is the losers attempt to obviate an accurate quotation.
I win on that, too.
Right now you’re probably trying to brush something off your face…you didn’t realize it was the floor.
You're quote mining AGAIN!
Gould is 100% Evolutionist and 100% Rejects YOUR Quote Mining Game.
It's OVER, YOU LOST PERMANENTLY if you were Honest.
Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Creationists Pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the Common Conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire Creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify Evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its Supporters.
[......]
`
That's the same fraud you cut and pasted just minutes ago.dNo, You LOSE again you DISHONEST POS.Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or "Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”(Gould)
I win again, huh?
'quote mining' is the losers attempt to obviate an accurate quotation.
I win on that, too.
Right now you’re probably trying to brush something off your face…you didn’t realize it was the floor.
You're quote mining AGAIN!
Gould is 100% Evolutionist and 100% Rejects YOUR Quote Mining Game.
It's OVER, YOU LOST PERMANENTLY if you were Honest.
Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Creationists Pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the Common Conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire Creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify Evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its Supporters.
[......]
`
Maybe if you use larger font you'll be right.
Nope......Gould buried Darwin.
Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or "Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”(Gould)
I win again, huh?
It is both, of course. No, you don't win anything for such a stupid question. Evolution happens at all speeds.Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or "Sudden appearance
It is both, of course. No, you don't win anything for such a stupid question. Evolution happens at all speeds.Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or "Sudden appearance
It is both, of course. No, you don't win anything for such a stupid question. Evolution happens at all speeds.Which is it.....slow, gradual accumulations of modifications (Darwin) or "Sudden appearance
Both?
So 'up' is the same as 'down'?
You're a moron.
Approximately 40% of Americans have IQ's of low 90s or lower.
A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture
A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture
Marxism is in no way connected with Judaism and Evolution is in no way connected to Marxism.
A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture
Marxism is in no way connected with Judaism and Evolution is in no way connected to Marxism.
Lots of psuedo-intellectuals identify as both, though, like the ACLU's assortment of lawyers, college academics, etc., so yes, they are connected, legitimately or not.
I wasn't aware until now that you were the spokes-clown for ''anybody who is really a scientist''. Such a weighty burden you bear. Are we to believe that the leading teaching and research universities with course curricula of biological evolution and the physical sciences are all a part of some grand conspiracy?Abu Faggot just needs to calm down and accept than even his God Dawkins has conceded that the intelligent design premises are valid from a certain point in time onward, and 'evolution' can't be considered to be 'random' any more. Anybody who is really a scientist knows there is no chain of evidence to support evolution as taught to children, it's a lie, and they have know this since the 1970's, when a convention of scientists and mathematicians proved it was a statistical impossibility. Most of the serious students and researchers have moved on to other handwaves, so should the assorted sexual deviants and sociopaths who are terrified Xians are going to take away their breakfast beers and meth and start telling children butt sex is bad and unhealthy again.
A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture
Marxism is in no way connected with Judaism and Evolution is in no way connected to Marxism.
A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture
Marxism is in no way connected with Judaism and Evolution is in no way connected to Marxism.
Lots of psuedo-intellectuals identify as both, though, like the ACLU's assortment of lawyers, college academics, etc., so yes, they are connected, legitimately or not.
You're confusing correlation with causation.
I wasn't aware until now that you were the spokes-clown for ''anybody who is really a scientist''. Such a weighty burden you bear. Are we to believe that the leading teaching and research universities with course curricula of biological evolution and the physical sciences are all a part of some grand conspiracy?Abu Faggot just needs to calm down and accept than even his God Dawkins has conceded that the intelligent design premises are valid from a certain point in time onward, and 'evolution' can't be considered to be 'random' any more. Anybody who is really a scientist knows there is no chain of evidence to support evolution as taught to children, it's a lie, and they have know this since the 1970's, when a convention of scientists and mathematicians proved it was a statistical impossibility. Most of the serious students and researchers have moved on to other handwaves, so should the assorted sexual deviants and sociopaths who are terrified Xians are going to take away their breakfast beers and meth and start telling children butt sex is bad and unhealthy again.
Atheism is not theology, so there's that.A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture
Marxism is in no way connected with Judaism and Evolution is in no way connected to Marxism.
Gee....what a shock.....you, being wrong again.
Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
One could nearly assume that Gould was telling the world he was indeed a Marxist. And by definition the theology of Marxism is atheism.
Two of Gould's fellow Harvard biological "revolutionaries" (Lewontin and Levin) co-authored a book on Marxist biology entitled The Dialectical Biologist, published by Harvard University Press in 1986. In a review of this textbook in Nature magazine, its author, David L. Hull, said, "Richard Levin and Richard Lewontin are two of the most knowledgeable and innovative evolutionary biologists working today. They also view themselves as Marxist revolutionaries. As Marxists, Levin and Lewontin insist that the economic substructure of a society strongly influences its ideational superstructure, including science"
Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled "Science for the People." Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: "Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s." Harvard's E.O. Wilson labeled the organization "American Marxists." Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!
In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist.
The new edition of "Science for the People" has been reestablished since 2002 with an endorsement from one of the founders of the original Science for the People — Herb Fox. In its working papers we are told "a few of us decided to start a magazine for Working Scientists active in the Anti-Capitalist Movement, as part of the European Social Forum."
Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist? | Worldview Weekend Broadcast Network
http://www.summit.org/blogs/the-presidents-desk/stephen-jay-gould/
How about, in the future, you stick to posting about somethings you know anything about.
Unless, of course, that would leave you mute.
I've noticed that the hyper-religious become furious when science challenges their fears and superstitions. Your conspiracy theories about evilutionists who have apparently infiltrated colleges and universities are as entertaining as they are stereotypical.I wasn't aware until now that you were the spokes-clown for ''anybody who is really a scientist''. Such a weighty burden you bear. Are we to believe that the leading teaching and research universities with course curricula of biological evolution and the physical sciences are all a part of some grand conspiracy?Abu Faggot just needs to calm down and accept than even his God Dawkins has conceded that the intelligent design premises are valid from a certain point in time onward, and 'evolution' can't be considered to be 'random' any more. Anybody who is really a scientist knows there is no chain of evidence to support evolution as taught to children, it's a lie, and they have know this since the 1970's, when a convention of scientists and mathematicians proved it was a statistical impossibility. Most of the serious students and researchers have moved on to other handwaves, so should the assorted sexual deviants and sociopaths who are terrified Xians are going to take away their breakfast beers and meth and start telling children butt sex is bad and unhealthy again.
Thanks, that means you're just another angry little deviant of some kind who makes stupid arguments and then gets deranged over losing. It's very simple, all 'evolutionists' need to do is present us with a chain of empirical evidence, then they can run around claiming evolution is 'fact'; until then they're just liars spreading falsehoods, not 'scientists'. You're obviously unfamiliar with the philosophy behind the empirical method. You should take some introductory science courses yourself first, then run around sniveling about other peoples' posts.
